CFI ForumsCopyright (c) 2017ExpressionEnginetag:centerforinquiry.net,2017:08:17Does Anybody Around Here Have Dignity?tag:centerforinquiry.net,2017:forums/viewthread/.195202017-08-15T15:36:18Zcultsmasher
]]>
What The Talmud Says.tag:centerforinquiry.net,2017:forums/viewthread/.195212017-08-15T16:15:57Zcultsmasher
Do you support the jews? Most likely, you do. Because that’s what they trained you to do. But you should stop and consider what their religion teaches. For example, in the talmud it says, “In one, for instance, where her husband had intercourse with her before the age of three and found blood, and when he had intercourse after the age of three he found no blood.” If you don’t support screwing babies, you shouldn’t support the jews.

I also have four pages of teachings from the talmud to show you. It’s no wonder that in Israel, it isn’t unknown for jews to spit on non-jews. It happened to an American reporter there named Anne Barker. She took an involuntary spit shower. Just for added measure, I will include a couple pictures of jews sucking baby penis. If you support the jews, maybe it’s time for you to rethink your position.

]]>
There is an historically accurate description of the Bibletag:centerforinquiry.net,2017:forums/viewthread/.195022017-08-09T13:36:51ZLausten
I’ve been developing this theme since I was Christian. It’s changed quite a bit since then, but the underlying principles remain. There is some true and correct and explanation of where the Bible came from. The theist or atheist should be equally invested in knowing what that is, and should be able to agree on methods to discover that truth. Faith and conspiracy theories are add on’s. How culture reacted to it also has historical facts about it. It’s a separate set of facts from where it came from though.

]]>
Are physicists the theologians of the future?tag:centerforinquiry.net,2017:forums/viewthread/.194942017-08-08T07:24:18Zderos
I’m just throwing the question in the title out there for consideration. I recently heard a talk by a Unitarian Universalist Minister about the soul asking does it exist, if so what is it and tons of other questions. The minister even brought in idea and concepts of physics, especially quantum mechanics. The audience was active and interested so the Q&A went on for some time. Of course no absolutes about the concept of a soul were reached but we all enjoyed.

At the end, the speaker said since physics tries to answer basically everything will we one day think of physicists as the theologians of tomorrow. I thought how insightful as the thought had never entered my mind but then again I never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed.

Just wondering. What are your thoughts?

]]>
Holy Helltag:centerforinquiry.net,2017:forums/viewthread/.194692017-07-30T10:40:55ZLausten
I’ve made a hobby out of cults, ever since the Jim Jones massive death/killing/suicide. Last night I saw the best documentary of a cult ever. The filmmaker was a member. He started making movies in school, then joined this cult in California. The leader is still alive and has 100 followers in Hawaii. It spends a lot of time showing exactly how he got them to accept him. The interviews are of some very bright people who recount their feelings with great clarity.

The access to the leader and the members is like nothing I’ve ever seen. It covers 25 years, and ends exactly like you would expect it to. But what’s revealed is how a controlling narcissist works. One ex-member points out that these people are everywhere, there’s no doubt one is right in your neighborhood. They don’t all have cult followings, but they control the neighborhood group, they get things from your friends without giving back, they say they have secrets and powers, but they rarely reveal anything. Occasionally they pull something off that helps people and their supporters use that as proof that they are awesome.

It’s “Holy Hell”, on Netflix. The cult was called the Buddhafield. I haven’t googled it yet.

]]>
Giving voice to R Dawkins: Help me understandtag:centerforinquiry.net,2017:forums/viewthread/.194582017-07-26T07:51:41ZJSmith
A single radio station pre-empts him abruptly.
His new book sales may have to find a new venue or…they may skyrocket with the publicity!!! Likely the later.

A message of grave importance goes out to all CFI members to donate and stop the madness now…here is my reply
I invite opposing views:

Hi:
I’m looking for direct cause and effect in your note.
Dawkins was dumped by a former station that favored his views, among others.
Donations are made to his foundation and CFI to send a message.
This money is matched.
This double the money up to 100K (200K total) will do what..exactly?

We all, or least the great majority of us, know what reality is; we also know that it is often difficult to find and often in contest, but for the most part, whether we admit it or not, even to ourselves, we know what is not real. What is real is the truth and nothing but the truth without rationalization, and alternate definitions and explanations. It is a true thing or situation that exists or has existed, a real event that is happening or has happened. It is the hard, unvarnished facts, the elusive quarry of law and science, the real McCoy, the Truth: a real fact. We all know almost instinctively what reality is, it is what we live with, it is the basis of our technical civilization and we all seek it and use it. Often, however, we choose not to understand and work with it; but to find ways to get around it, to deny it, to escape from it, and to protect our own interests from it.

Actually, circumvention of truth is not something that human beings have invented, it is just an aspect of the existence of life that through our intelligence and interactive societies and cultures, we have come close to perfecting the manipulation and denial of truth. Lies and deception have evolved as an integral part of all life, plant and animal. Yeah, roll your eyes at that assertion, but it is, for want of a better definition, The Truth.

For example, a squirrel, a delightful little beast that lives among us, feeds largely on a seasonal food, acorns and other seeds and nuts, a diet of largess and scarcity. So to protect from want in the future, our little squirrel buries many acorns in the ground around its area. It “squirrels” away as much of the excess that it can hide away from the competition in preparation for times of scarcity. Now if you were to ask, “Mr. Squirrel, where did you hide those acorns?”, and if he could answer, of course you would expect him to say, “Huh, acorns?, I don’t see no acorns, they ain’t around here no more.” and then sit up, put his front paws on his fat little belly and say, “Gee, I’m hungry, you got any acorns on you?” But of course Mr. Squirrel wouldn’t do that, because, well, he’s a squirrel, not a human. His deceptions are instinctive behavior and not calculated lies and deceits.

And in another more direct and dire form of deception, there is the frogfish, a lump of a fish covered with fleshy flaps and appendages that disguise its form and that sits very, very still on rocky bottoms in the sea and looks for all the world like just another rock or sponge even it’s eyes disguised in its coloration. But it is not totally inert, it has a wiggly appendage, the illicium or “rod” developed from the first dorsal spine that has on its end an esca or “lure” that has the look and action of a wormlike small creature that a little fish would find quite appetizing. The great deception of the frogfish is telling the world, “Hey, I’m just a funny little lump grown-over with algae, but look, there’s a delightful little worm here that is yours for the taking, come and get it.” And when the little fish takes the lump up on that invitation and gets just close enough, a huge mouth explodes from the lump in 6 milliseconds, the mouth cavity enlarges in size by 12 times pulling the hapless little fish, who only wanted a little worm for dinner, into a huge maw of the eat and/or be eaten ecology of life on the reefs. Survival in nature is dependent on deception, stealth, secrecy, camouflage, and misdirection, as well as, if not more than speed, keen senses, and physical strength.

Even plants deceive. The plant world is replete with plants that pretend in color, form, secretions, and growth to attract insects, to effect pollination, induce insects to effect pollination, grow spines to prevent grazing, develop toxins to prevent or reduce growth of other plants and invasion of insects, and hide from predation through coloration and mimicry. Plants are the great deceivers in the role call of life on Earth, although some might argue, or observe, that humanity is narrowing the gap.

It is the human species, above all other life, that has the capacity to understand and manipulate reality. Not actually manipulate or change what is real, just the ability within a government, organization, and/or culture to decide what is and what is not reality, and to create a false reality that best serves them. Ever since humanity developed the capacity to say to a wandering tribe that entered their territory, “Just over that hill by the stream is a cave where you can live near fruit trees and woods with lots of deer and rabbits.”; neglecting to mention that that is also where the stream dries up and tigers and leopards live. Lies, deception, murder, theft, embezzlement, defamation, and all manner of betrayal and treachery are the threads that wind through the history of humanity. They are the threads of self interest, individual and family power, sexual conquest, money, and ego. Unfortunately, these threads are stronger and longer than the ties that bind us in compassion and charity. and, despite safeguards, they also wind through the human organizations that genuinely profess religion, compassion, government, industry, and health and welfare. But through it all, however disguised and suppressed, there is reality. The human capacity for deception and manipulation of reality may well be an evolutionary trait with immense survival significance.

Reality, as it applies to humanity, is nowhere as confused and lost as it is in religion. In religion, reality depends upon vague interpretations of history, story tellers, self interests, wishful thinking to the extreme, and evolving cultures through time and change. For example take the following two statements:

God is Great, Allahu Akba (in Arabic), which in Islam, is a foundational declaration of the accepted reality of the identity of God that is the basis for the Islamic faith.

Jesus Saves, is a foundational declaration of the accepted reality of Christianity that defines the belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ that is basis for the Christian faith.

These two religions, Islam and Christianity, in all their sects and divisions, make up the majority of people in the world today, so together they are very significant in the accepted reality of most people alive today. But they are very different in belief and culture. In practice and in their own definitions (unless there are two separate Gods), both statements can not define and describe reality. Only one (or none) can be real. But both claim in absolute terms, and with weapons, that their religion describes actual reality and the other, to be kind, simply does not agree and is in error. In terms of reality these (if other religions and rejection of religions is not considered) are the two options for describing and defining our reality. Which is a correct description of reality? The essence of reality demands that only one, or none, is an accurate basic characterizations of actual reality. But which is it? Wars have been and are being fought over the answer to this question.

But in analysis of the needs of society/government for micro and macro control of society, actual reality must be “managed” to suit the needs for continued existence of the overriding culture. This is a messy process, and actual reality plays a minor role. Politics is the operative factor. Proper attention must be given to religion, at the very least just acknowledgement that religion exists will often be all that is necessary. And even within organized religion, politics always trumps doctrine.

So what is reality? Does reality really exist? If it does, is it always the same? Or can it change depending on the needs and beliefs of people? Is reality the same now as it was before Homo sapiens evolved? Will reality change in the End Times? Will there be End Times? Does reality exist outside of religion? Basically though, this is the question. Is reality real? If you are younger than 50 years old, the future of humanity may depend on your answer.

]]>
What does it mean to be a Christian??tag:centerforinquiry.net,2017:forums/viewthread/.194192017-07-17T03:26:28ZAdamski
Can someone tell me? Can you still call yourself a Christian if you don’t believe in the resurrection?? How about rejectiing the virgin birth? Can you still be a Christian? Redemption? Salvation?

Anyone able to answer?

]]>
Is Murder Wrong If There Is No God?tag:centerforinquiry.net,2017:forums/viewthread/.192612017-05-02T18:25:11Zjohn76
Rubrics that are shared with students before they begin constructing their products are good because then the students understand what they need to do in order to get the grade they want, and when we lay out the criteria it prevents arbitrary subjective grading (e.g., this “looks like” a 75%). Rubrics also help facilitate the discussion with the students as to why they got the specific grade they received. It’s all about “accountable” education.

Going back to my Philosophy teaching days, “Making a Judgement (such as “judging” a student’s essay to be a 75%),” means you have decided something has met, failed to meet, or approximated a criteria. The criteria may be explicit, as in a rubric, or implicit, but it’s there. Making the criteria explicit is always favorable, which is why rubrics are important – for the reasons I outlined above.

And this model extends to content area taught to students. Consider the example of the ethical question of whether murder is objectively wrong if there is no God:

When we make “judgements,” such as the judgement that “murder is wrong,” we make those judgements by applying either explicit or implicit criteria.

For instance, when an elementary school teacher is making a judgement as to what grade a child gets on a narrative piece of writing that the child has submitted, the teacher applies a rubric judging such things as effective use by the child of such things as:

Ideas—the main message
Organization—the internal structure of the piece
Voice—the personal tone and flavor of the author’s message
Word Choice—the vocabulary a writer chooses to convey meaning
Sentence Fluency—the rhythm and flow of the language
Conventions—the mechanical correctness
Presentation—how the writing actually looks on the page

Similarly, when a mixed martial arts judge tries to determine which fighter wins the match, they judge the fighters respective performances against such criteria as striking, grappling, and aggression.

The problem with moral judgements is that it is hard to get non-subjective criteria. In terms of murder, our culture in our time judges murder to be wrong, but other cultures in other times have approved of such things as cannibalism and feeding the Christians to the lions for sport. If we are not to just adapt an arbitrary “holier than thou” attitude from the point of view of our time, individual biases, and culture, the question is what right do we have to judge others that have a different worldview than we do?

If we are not to have moral relativism, we need to establish what the objective criteria is for judging that murder is wrong.